Appeal No. 2000-1000
Application No. 08/392,062
respective claims set forth an invention that was not
originally contemplated by appellant and cannot be discerned
from a reading of the original disclosure. In other words,
appellant’s underlying disclosure simply does not inform one
skilled in the art of a self-clamping liquid barrier or of a
clamping element for a self-clamping liquid barrier that has a
bore and a locking member in the bore for frictional
engagement with an undercut of a liquid conduit groove to
achieve the disclosed advantage. Clearly, the subject matter
of claims 20 and 26 is not disclosed as insuring that a dam
will not, in use, slide or otherwise move around in the liquid
conduit groove such that the loose dam would fly away and
cause injury. Appellant’s reference to a broad principle of
permitting claims for subcombinations as well as for
combinations (revised brief, page 8) simply does not apply to
the specific inventions of respective claims 20 and 26, which
inventions clearly lack support in the original disclosure, as
explained above. It is also appellant’s viewpoint that there
is nothing in the original disclosure which clearly indicates
that two locking elements, two bores, and two undercuts are
“critical” (revised brief, page 9). We refer appellant to our
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007